Sarah Palin in Newsweek: “I can win”

posted at 8:45 pm on July 10, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin hasn’t yet revealed whether she plans to run for the GOP presidential nomination, but she’s confident she could win if she really wanted.

“I believe that I can win a national election,” Palin said recently in a conversation with Newsweek’s Peter J. Boyer. “I’m not so egotistical as to believe that it has to be me, or it can only be me, to turn things around. But I do believe that I can win.”

Perhaps her popularity among Republicans and conservatives warrants that pretty impressive confidence (after all, a countless many continue to clamor for her entrance into the presidential race), but, for whatever the polls are worth, Palin hasn’t yet bested President Barack Obama in a hypothetical presidential match-up (at least that I’ve seen). But, then, of the present GOP candidates, only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has fared favorably against the incumbent, anyway, so maybe Palin has a point. If anything, the utter lack of cockiness among the current Republican contenders (with, again, the possible exception of Romney, who was cool and confident recently to suggest the firing of an Obama economic adviser) might be just what has caused so many to describe this year’s field as “dullsville.” Maybe the Palin presumption is what this race needs. Maybe, with Palin competing for the nomination, the other Republicans would kick it into even higher gear.

Fortunately for Palin (as she herself recognizes) and probably for the GOP, it’s still very early and the field is far from set.

“Thank goodness the field is not yet set,” Palin said in the interview with Newsweek. “I think that there does need to be more vigorous debate. There needs to be a larger field. And there’s still time. There’s still months ahead, where more folks can jump in and start articulating their positions.”

But, if she’s going to get in, I wish she’d get in now, so folks would stop evaluating her non-campaign-campaign tactics and start talking again about her policy positions (which, at least as she laid them out in the Newsweek article, are as solid as ever).

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

You want to point to the leader in the last 23 years that just said what I said? you want to point to the politcal party that has run on those ideals and ideology in the last 17 years? you want to list the schools that teach that? You want to jot down the media that reports on that ideology?

the country is where it is today because we have been exposed to nothing but socialism and soicalism lite bvy our leaders, opinion makers, teachers and media.

and when leaders that not only say these things but teach them and govern under them they are attacked and told to get off the stage. you want socialism tell Palin to get off the stage. We are seeing in 2010 and now in 2012 a yearning for of that human soul to return to freedom and a rejection of socialism writ large. And one of the reasons we are seeing it is because of leaders liek Palin showing a better way and fighting for that better way. The truth sings to a persons heart.

It would have helped if you had pointed out to an example in this thread of someone “dumping” on another candidate. You didn’t do that – you just suddenly decided to make a speech without any context.

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 8:09 PM

OK, seriously, at this point you have become entirely anal retentive. To impose such a condition on someone’s innocent post, that they delver a context for YOU, and YOU alone, otherwise you declare them sanctimonious in such an un-reflective knee-jerk fashion is REALLY STRETCHING, GASPING and GRASPING.

Gawd, talk about an intolerant chowder-head, and I rarely resort to name-calling, but I am making a rare exception here.

What gives? Of all the posts to go off on you pick one that had the best of intentions and even when the poster tries to explain it–YOU STILL DENY IT and then tell them what else they should have included in their post. Un-Freaking Believable.

Thanks, Geo ~ couldn’t have said it better myself. BD reminds me of how the Libs attack anyone who even implies anything remotely against them. They start harping on stupid crap to attempt to demoralize the poster from posting ever again. Same style as Palin haters. Paul Revere, anyone? Eeeesh… so annoying. BUT… it doesn’t deter me. All it does is illuminate the pettiness of the contrarian/attacker, so if by being the punching bag I can help the cause… so be it. ;~)

Don’t for one minute let anyone shackle your enthusiasm or try to reign in your spirit by placing constraints on your speech patterns. I don’t see how anyone could have taken exception to what you said given that it was delivered with good intentions as a call to raise the debate to higher levels of decorum.

I thought we had discussed this, yet here we are re-discussing the same 3-year-old criticisms that are not nearly as relevant as they used to be.

Sarah is a warm, engaging person who is always trying to convert people to common sense conservatism. Sometimes it gets her into trouble. So what? If she were in campaign mode, which she wasn’t when she made the accurate but insuccinct PR mention, she will not let the media narrative stay distracted over slips of the tongue. She controls the narrative better than any other candidate even if they make no mistakes.

Her prepared speeches will be the best on the trail. Her presentation reaches far beyond just Republicans. She interacts with union members, retirees, small business owners, law enforcement and military personnel (who are no longer solidly conservative), and mothers who worry about the future of their children.

If you think Mrs Palin needs to become more detached and aloof in order to present a more teflon image to the media, you don’t understand that she will never project that image. She respects the media’s purpose in American society but has little respect for the way they practice it both toward her and O’Bama. But if they do their jobs as the government-external voice of the public, she will treat them with the respect the First Amendment assumes they are worthy of. Remember she started out as a journalist, so she knows how they are supposed to do their jobs.

I think for all of O’Bama’s cold, aloof, ruthless exterior that makes him appear commanding, it is clear that he is a ditherer except in matters of personal gain. So an aloof demeanor is meaningless when evaluating a candidate’s leadership and decision-making prowess. Her leadership is legendary in comparison to his.

Buy Danish, my respect for you plummeted as I went back and read your responses to my post. I actually do have a full-time job, so I can’t be here all day every day to respond to your “special kind of stupid…”

But by implying that Sarah Palin “can’t win against Obama,” and supporting Mitt, I can come to no other conclusion that you are one of those Rasmussen and Gallup poll-o-philes who is basing his vote on Mitt’s “frontrunner” status. That, my dear friend, is some “special kind of stupid” as far as I’m concerned. Of course, your mileage may vary, but you really out to re-evalute your Big Mitt Love in light of the fact that Bachmann is beating him (albeit within the margin of error) in Iowa.

Nope. For 2+ years Palin has been the subject of “scrutiny” the likes of never seen before. Tooooo many R’s remained silent as the mentally deranged “vetted” her. Some even began to believe the lies. Most of the R “thought leaders” and other R leadership position types did little, if anything, to help put a stop/diminish those attacks. Some of those that chose to remain silent are now candidates for the Republican nomination. After 2 years of refuting and countering the left’s attacks, some of her supporters have widened their field to include those who sat idly by. A natural progression, however unfortunate…

Implied, but not revealed in your words, was why the R leadership did little on her behalf. Because they fear her as much as any on the left. She represents what they hate: Individualism and non-acquiescence to one’s “natural” leaders.
They want sheeple who vote (R) every bit as much as Democrats want sheeple who vote (D). To have power you must have control. She will not be controlled and she inspires others to remove their shackles. Authoritarians just hate that.

No, you bleeping jackass. I used it in contrast to “Palinista” which means absolutely nothing yet gets “Palin supporters” upset for some reason. Has anyone explained why “Palinista” is offensive?

Geochelone on July 11, 2011 at 9:28 PM

She wanted to know what the problem was and I told her. I explained why it sounded like a sanctimonious speech. She had absolutely no context and suddenly began pontificating about blog manners. And as I have repeatedly noted there were zero examples at this thread of what she was talking about (except from her own teammates which she failed to notice).
Also note that her oh so well-intentioned post began by (lamely) mocking the premise I had been arguing about how Palin’s indecisiveness was hurting the field she claims to want:

I’ve decided I’m going to start complaining CONSTANTLY that Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Bachmann et al have jumped in far TOO soon and as a result are ruining my primary experience because I’m for Palin. That they’re distracting from my preferred candidate’s game plan. That they’re taking money that she should get. That they’re getting media attention she should get.

Ummm… no, I don’t think so.

Good grief, folks. You might consider not trying to micro-manage the world. While I do think the current declared candidates have jumped in too soon, I also recognize they don’t have name sufficient recognition or money or both; but do I bang my drum making demands on them? Do I complain ad nauseam about it? No. It is what it is. I deal with it.

So forgive me if I was didn’t cheer on her her self-righteous declarations. She was presenting herself as the shining example of how to comment and what to comment about. Her comments also made no sense (“they jumped in to soon:, what?… but I digress).

I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings or insulted you personally, which is apparently why you’ve decided to lash out. It obviously wasn’t my intention. I was trying to make a point which you clearly missed. Have a good day.

I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings or insulted you personally, which is apparently why you’ve decided to lash out. It obviously wasn’t my intention. I was trying to make a point which you clearly missed. Have a good day.
greeneyedconservative on July 12, 2011 at 12:52 PM

No, you didn’t insult me personally and you didn’t hurt my feelings – but apparently I have hurt yours. I responded to your original post with a “Ha!” and pointed out that no one was doing what you said we shouldn’t do (except for Palin supporters). I was asked for an explanation as to why I called it “sanctimonious” and I provided it. You asked for a further explanation and I provided it.

My point about how you began your post was just to illustrate that you seemed to be directing your comment at me (or were responding to my positions), but I had not done what you went on to preach about. No one had. You then launched into a long bit about what you would do and wouldn’t do. Well, good for you! What did that have to do with anything that was being discussed?

…BD reminds me of how the Libs attack anyone who even implies anything remotely against them. They start harping on stupid crap to attempt to demoralize the poster from posting ever again. Blah blah blah…
greeneyedconservative on July 11, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Feeling sorry for yourself much? I wasn’t trying to “demoralize you”. I was making a point, and ironically you continue to make it for me with your unrelenting attempt to portray yourself as being morally superior. Which, if we must play this stupid game, is what liberals do.

I’ll take a moment to take on some other silliness:

gryphon202 on July 12, 2011 at 12:09 AM

You made nonsensical arguments about who we should be able to comment about. You decided that because (at this point in time, btw) I support Romney I shouldn’t comment about Palin. Doesn’t that strike you as an idiotic position to take? Meanwhile, this really has nothing to do with Mitt Romney. What do Rasmussen polls have to do with my comments about Sarah Palin’s indecisiveness? Absolutely nothing? And now you’re telling me you don’t respect me or something because I support Mitt (who polls show is beating Obama in Florida right now, so sue me). Aren’t you doing what the greeneyedconservative told us we shouldn’t do? “Dump on” people because of who they support? Hilarious…

You are mistaken. HA Palin threads are repleat with those who write such statements about Palin, including this thread…
Gohawgs on July 12, 2011 at 1:56 AM

I did not see anything of the sort at this thread at the time I wrote that. I already said that it happens.

There’s a new website up RomneyExposed.com, and no it’s not a pro Dem site. Mittens’ laundry exposed on the cheap, wonder if Buy Danish has seen it?
bigmike on July 12, 2011 at 2:46 AM

OOOOOH! It says he “committed a felony”! Gee, I hope this makes it into the headlines (if not here, at Drudge or someplace)./

Buy Danish… You are so far from hurting my feelings it’s not even funny. The only feeling I have is annoyance as you have made a mountain out of nothing. And again, who made you the freaking thread monitor? Please, give it a rest. It’s a new day. Hope you have a good one.

Ha! You made a mountain out of nothing with your long speech. Then you suggested that my ‘feelings were hurt’ causing me to “lash out”. Now you’re all uppity because I said perhaps it was you who had hurt feelings. In case this isn’t clear I’ll phrase this another way: YOU began the hurt feelings talking point, NOT ME. The hypocrisy is telling.

P.S. Still waiting for an answer to this:

You then launched into a long bit about what you would do and wouldn’t do. Well, good for you! What did that have to do with anything that was being discussed?

Uppity? Good grief… For some reason, you have your knickers in a twist making you come off as a jerk. Please, let it go ~ the horse is dead already. If you can’t do that, then… bugger off. And for the third and final time ~ have a nice day.

I’ll keep this simple: I have no patience for Blog Nannies who make rules, set themselves up as paragons of virtue, complain that other people are “thread monitors” (after they responded to questions they were asked!), and then turn around using phrases like “Bugger off”.

The next time you want to make a speech promoting your virtue maybe you should run for office.